Application to register land known as Seaton Meadow at as a new Village Green

A report by the Head of Countryside Access Service to County Council’s Regulation Committee Member Panel on Tuesday 15th November 2011.

Recommendation: I recommend that a non-statutory Public Inquiry be held into the case to clarify the issues.

Local Members: Mr. M. Northey Unrestricted item

Introduction

1. The County Council has received an application to register land known as Seaton Meadow at Wickhambreaux as a new Town or Village Green from the Wickhambreaux Parish Council (“the Applicant”). The application, made on 28th June 2010, was allocated reference number VGA627. A plan of the site is shown at Appendix A to this report and a copy of the application form is attached at Appendix B.

Procedure

2. The application has been made under section 15 of the Commons Act 2006 and the Commons Registration () Regulations 2008.

3. Section 15(1) of the Commons Act 2006 enables any person to apply to a Commons Registration Authority to register land as a Town or Village Green where it can be shown that: ‘a significant number of the inhabitants of any locality, or of any neighbourhood within a locality, have indulged as of right in lawful sports and pastimes on the land for a period of at least 20 years;

4. In addition to the above, the application must meet one of the following tests: • Use of the land has continued ‘as of right’ until at least the date of application (section 15(2) of the Act); or • Use of the land ‘as of right’ ended no more than two years prior to the date of application, e.g. by way of the erection of fencing or a notice (section 15(3) of the Act); or • Use of the land ‘as of right’ ended before 6th April 2007 and the application has been made within five years of the date the use ‘as of right’ ended (section 15(4) of the Act).

5. As a standard procedure set out in the Regulations, the Applicant must notify the landowner of the application and the County Council must notify every local authority. The County Council must also publicise the application in a newspaper circulating in the local area and place a copy of the notice on the County Council’s website. In addition, as a matter of best practice rather than legal requirement, the County Council also places copies of the notice on site to provide local people with

the opportunity to comment on the application. The publicity must state a period of at least six weeks during which objections and representations can be made.

The application site

6. The area of land subject to this application (“the application site”) is known locally as Seaton Meadow and is situated on the south-eastern fringes of the village of Wickhambreaux, although, officially, the land itself falls within the neighbouring parish of . The application has therefore been made by the Wickhambreaux Parish Council, but it has the full support of Ickham and Well Parish Council.

7. The application site consists of approximately 8.5 hectares (21 acres) of grazing land, with the river running across its centre. A plan showing the application site is attached at Appendix A.

8. Access to the application site is via three stiles in the fencing bordering Seaton Road, giving access to Public Footpath CB184 which is formed of two sections crossing the northern part of the application site. However, in early 2010, fencing was erected along the footpath, thereby cutting off access to the river and the meadow.

The case

9. The application has been made on the grounds that the application site has become a Town or Village Green by virtue of the actual use of the land by the local inhabitants for a range of recreational activities ‘as of right’ for more than 20 years.

10. In support of the application, 115 user evidence questionnaires (some supplemented by statements) were submitted detailing the recreational use of the application site, as well as various charts and plans showing the application site and the use of it. A summary of the evidence submitted in support of the application is attached at Appendix C.

11. Also included with the application were letters of support from Ickham and Well Parish Council, County Councillor Mr. M. Northey, City Councillor B. Staley, the Ickham, and Wickhambreaux Conservation Society, St. Andrew’s Church Wickhambreaux, Wickhambreaux Primary School, and the Wickhambreaux Village Hall Management Committee. In summary, the letters of support refer to use of the application site without restriction by many generations of local residents for recreational pursuits.

Consultations

12. Consultations have been carried out as required. The Ickham and Well Parish Council wrote to reiterate its support for the application, whilst City Council wrote to confirm that they had no proprietary interest in the application site and had no comment to make on the application itself.

13. During the consultation period, objections to the application were received from three local residents, disputing recreational use of the application site and raising concerns regarding the future grazing of cattle on the land.

14. A representation has also been received from Mr. J. Holdstock, who has been the tenant farmer of the land since 1991, providing an account of his knowledge of the application site. Mr. Holdstock explains that, in his experience, there has not been significant public access to the application site (as this would otherwise interfere with his use of the land for grazing) and any use of the application site has been predominantly on the designated footpaths. He adds that the most common digression from this is people walking along the northern bank of the Little Stour, only very occasionally venturing to the south of the river. Mr. Holdstock confirms that permission to use the land has been obtained for exceptional use (such as parking for village events) and that the closure of the application site due to foot- and-mouth would have led to an interruption to use.

Landowners

15. Historically, the site was owned for many centuries by the Church Commissioners and was let for grazing (mainly cattle). In 2009, the land was put up for auction and purchased by a consortium of individuals who divided the land into plots. A plan showing the current position with regard to ownership is attached at Appendix D.

16. All four of the current landowners have made representations in respect of the application (“the Objectors”).

Mr. S. van de Vyer

17. Mr. van de Vyer owns part of the application site which abuts the southern side of the Little Stour. This area of land is registered with the Land Registry under title number K965436.

18. Mr. van de Vyer wrote to express concerns regarding the proposed change in status of the land leading to the cessation of cattle farming. The land should, in his view, remain a grazing field.

Mr. and Mrs. D. Pierce

19. Mr. and Mrs. Pierce own an area of land that is situated on the western part of the application site. This area of land is registered with the Land Registry under title number K965680.

20. Mr. and Mrs. Pierce have lived adjacent to the application site for 11 years and state that, during this time, they have only ever seen friends and neighbours walking on the land. That vast majority follow a linear route between the stiles following the river bank and only very seldom does anyone cross the river to access the land to the south of it. Any use of the land for dog walking has been with the permission of the tenant farmer (who has also challenged such use on occasion) and has not taken place when cattle were in the field.

21. Mr. and Mrs. Pierce object to the application on the basis that they have not witnessed any of the lawful sports and pastimes referred to in the application taking place on the land and, in their view, claims of such use have been exaggerated and misrepresented in the application.

Mr. R. Locke

22. Mr. R. Locke is one of the trustees of the Premier Trust, which owns a parcel of land at the southernmost part of the application site. This area of land is registered with the Land Registry under title number K965417.

23. Mr. Locke objects to the application on the basis that any alleged recreational use of the application site has not taken place continuously because people have not accessed the site when it has been in use for grazing. He accepts that particular individuals have occasionally trespassed off the footpath and walked along the river bank, however, such use has involved following a defined track, which is more akin to the use of a footpath.

24. Mr. Locke adds that his land can only be accessed by crossing the river. There is no bridge and, most of the year, the river is in full flow and cannot be crossed without wading through. As such, for significant periods throughout the year, this part of the application site has been inaccessible to recreational users.

Mr. and Mrs. M. Perkins

25. An objection to the application has been received Mr. and Mrs. Perkins who own a piece of land on the northern part of the application site, between the Little Stour river and Seaton Road. This area of land is registered with the Land Registry under title number K965437.

26. The objection is made on the following grounds:  That use of the application site has been by virtue of permission granted by the tenant farmer for specific activities (such as car parking for community and private functions). Permission can also be implied through the actions of the tenant farmer, such as the locking of the gate and the erection of electric fencing on the site;  That use of the application site has been challenged by the tenant farmer, who has on occasion asked people to leave;  That intensive grazing of the land is incompatible with recreational rights and recreational users deferred to the grazing and amended their behaviour accordingly. The land has been commercially grazed on a continuous basis for the whole of the grazing season for at least 80 years;  That there has not been a full and uninterrupted period of 20 years’ use due to rotational grazing and river flooding. The river area provides a source of drinking water and is therefore heavily poached by the cattle. Large parts of the land have been inaccessible during periods of flooding (particularly in 2000/2001);  That use of the application site has been almost exclusively by recreational walkers who use it as an extended walk through the area. Other activities referred to in the application, such as picnics and paddling, are an extension of footpath use, and are of an infrequent and ad hoc nature.

Legal tests

27. In dealing with an application to register a new Town or Village Green the County Council must consider the following criteria: (a) Whether use of the land has been 'as of right'?

(b) Whether use of the land has been for the purposes of lawful sports and pastimes? (c) Whether use has been by a significant number of inhabitants of a particular locality, or a neighbourhood within a locality? (d) Whether use of the land ‘as of right’ by the inhabitants has continued up until the date of application or meets one of the criteria set out in sections 15(3) or (4)? (e) Whether use has taken place over period of twenty years or more?

I shall now take each of these points and elaborate on them individually:

(a) Whether use of the land has been 'as of right'?

28. The definition of the phrase ‘as of right’ has been considered by the House of Lords. Following the judgement in the Sunningwell1 case, it is considered that if a person uses the land for a required period of time without force, secrecy or permission (“nec vi, nec clam, nec precario”), and the landowner does not stop him or advertise the fact that he has no right to be there, then rights are acquired.

29. In this case, there is no suggestion that the informal recreational use of the application site during the relevant material period has been in exercise of force or in secrecy. There is, however, a question as to whether recreational use has been permissive and the effect of alleged verbal challenges by the tenant farmer.

Permission

30. The objector’s stance is that any recreational use of the application site has been by virtue of permission, express or implied, from the tenant farmer. It is stated that permission has been sought for formal events and that permission can be implied by the actions of the tenant farmer in managing his land and in allowing recreational use to continue on the land.

31. It is the applicant’s case that, whilst accepting that permission has been sought for exceptional use of the land (e.g. car parking), the recreational use of the application site has taken place without any permission from either the tenant farmer or the landowners.

32. As a general rule, in order for permission to be effective in defeating an application for the registration of land as a Village Green, it is important that the granting of such permission is communicated to those using the land. In some cases, it might be possible for permission to be inferred by the conduct of the landowner, but it will not be possible to infer permission from mere inaction on the part of a landowner with knowledge of the use to which the land is being put.

33. This issue was explored in the Beresford2 case, in which it was held that “a landowner may so conduct himself as to make clear, even in the absence of any express statement, notice or record, that the inhabitants’ use of the land is pursuant to his permission. This may be done, for example, by excluding the inhabitants on occasional days: the landowner in this way asserts his right to exclude, and so makes plain that the inhabitants’ use on other occasions occurs because he does

1 R v. Oxfordshire County Council and another, Sunningwell Parish Council [1999] 3 All ER 385 2 R v City of Sunderland ex parte Beresford [2003] UKHL 60 at paragraph 5

not choose on this occasions to exercise his right to exclude and so permits such use”.

34. In order for permission for informal recreation to be implied, therefore, it will be necessary to demonstrate that the land has, periodically, been closed to the exclusion of the recreational users. There is insufficient evidence in this case to suggest that this has been the case at Seaton Meadow.

Challenges to use

35. The objectors also make reference to incidents where recreational use of the application site has been challenged by the tenant farmer, who has had occasion to ask people to leave the land. This is strongly disputed by the applicant, who states that the examples of challenges cited by the objectors relate to isolated incidents of inconsiderate use (such as children worrying the cattle) rather than to general recreational use by the local residents.

36. Therefore, on the issue of whether use of the application site has been ‘as of right’, the evidence as a whole suggests that use has taken place ‘as of right’, although further investigation of the alleged challenges is required before it is possible to reach an informed conclusion.

(b) Whether use of the land has been for the purposes of lawful sports and pastimes?

37. Lawful sports and pastimes can be commonplace activities including dog walking, children playing, picnicking and kite-flying. It is not necessary to demonstrate that both sporting activities and pastimes have taken place since the phrase ‘lawful sports and pastimes’ has been interpreted by the Courts as being a single composite group rather than two separate classes of activities3.

38. Legal principle does not require that rights of this nature be limited to certain ancient pastimes (such as maypole dancing) or for organised sports or communal activities to have taken place. The Courts have held that ‘dog walking and playing with children [are], in modern life, the kind of informal recreation which may be the main function of a village green’4.

39. In this case, the evidence demonstrates that the land has been used for a wide range of recreational activities, including walking (with or without dogs), picnics, paddling, playing with children, kite-flying and nature observation. The summary of evidence of use by local residents at Appendix C shows the full range of activities claimed to have taken place.

40. The objectors assert that they have not witnesses any significant recreational use of the application site by local residents and also dispute that some of alleged activities took place: the disputed activities include kite flying (due to the presence of overhead power cables), ball games (due to the topography of the site) and swimming (due to the depth of the river). The applicants contend that there is a

3 R v. Oxfordshire County Council and another, ex parte Sunningwell Parish Council [1999] 3 All ER 385 4 R v Suffolk County Council, ex parte Steed [1995] 70 P&CR 487 at 508 and approved by Lord Hoffman in R v. Oxfordshire County Council and another, ex parte Sunningwell Parish Council [1999] 3 All ER 385

significant body of evidence of use and that there is evidence of use for those activities that are disputed by the objectors.

Public Footpath CB184

41. The majority of the use of the application site has been for the purposes of walking and this raises questions in relation to the existence of the two sections of Public Footpath CB184 running across the northern part the application site. Use of a defined route that constitutes a recorded Public Footpath is use that is in exercise of an existing right and cannot give rise to any further rights. Similarly, use of a defined track (as opposed to wandering at will over a piece of land) will also give rise to the presumption that the users are asserting a right of passage rather than a general right to recreate.

42. The issue was considered by the Courts in Laing Homes5, in which the judge said that: ‘it is important to distinguish between use that would suggest to a reasonable landowner that the users believed they were exercising a public right of way to walk, with or without dogs... and use that would suggest to such a landowner that the users believed that they were exercising a right to indulge in lawful sports and pastimes across the whole of the fields’.

43. In this case, there is a dispute as to the extent of footpath-related use. The objectors assert that the vast majority of the recreational use of the application site is (or is associated with) walking along the existing footpaths. Such use is in exercise of an existing right and cannot give rise to a general right of recreation across the whole of the application site.

44. However, the applicant’s position is that, although the land is accessed via the footpath stiles, walkers generally walk away from the designated footpaths which are little used by local people. Some of the walkers have preferred routes devised according to personal preference, whilst others wander more freely across the application site. With the exception of a visible track along the northern bank of the river, there are no other identifiable tracks (so as to suggest use along linear footpath-type routes) on the application site.

45. The exercise of distinguishing between types of use is something that is very difficult to achieve on paper. It is a question of evidence that requires more detailed scrutiny, preferably by way of the cross examination of witnesses in a public forum.

(c) Whether use has been by a significant number of inhabitants of a particular locality, or a neighbourhood within a locality?

46. The right to use a Town or Village Green is restricted to the inhabitants of a locality or of a neighbourhood within a locality and it is therefore important to be able to define this area with a degree of accuracy so that the group of people to whom the recreational rights are attached can be identified.

47. The definition of locality for the purposes of a village green application has been the subject of much debate in the courts and there is still no definite rule to be applied.

5 R (Laing Homes) v Buckinghamshire County Council [2003] 3 EGLR 70 at 79 per Sullivan J.

In the Cheltenham Builders6 case, it was considered that ‘…at the very least, Parliament required the users of the land to be the inhabitants of somewhere that could sensibly be described as a locality… there has to be, in my judgement, a sufficiently cohesive entity which is capable of definition’. The judge later went on to suggest that this might mean that locality should normally constitute ‘some legally recognised administrative division of the county’.

48. On the subject of neighbourhood, the Courts have held that ‘it is common ground that a neighbourhood need not be a recognised administrative unit. A housing estate might well be described in ordinary language as a neighbourhood… The Registration Authority has to be satisfied that the area alleged to be a neighbourhood has a sufficient degree of cohesiveness; otherwise the word “neighbourhood” would be stripped of any real meaning’7.

49. At part 6 of the application form, the applicant specifies the relevant locality and neighbourhood as “the neighbourhood of Wickhambreaux village with Seaton hamlet, within the localities of Wickhambreaux and Ickham parishes”

50. The objectors do not seek to challenge the application on the basis of the locality/neighbourhood relied upon by the applicant and make no detailed submission about this part of the legal tests.

51. In this case, both the parishes of Wickhambreaux and Ickham and Well constitute legally recognised administrative units. The village of Wickhambreaux (as distinct from the wider parish) and the hamlet of Seaton are clearly identifiable neighbourhoods. Case law suggests that an applicant may rely on two or more qualifying neighbourhoods within a locality or localities8. Therefore, the neighbourhoods and localities relied upon by the applicant would appear to satisfy the legal tests.

“a significant number”

52. The word “significant” in this context does not mean considerable or substantial: ‘a neighbourhood may have a very limited population and a significant number of the inhabitants of such a neighbourhood might not be so great as to properly be described as a considerable or a substantial number… what matters is that the number of people using the land in question has to be sufficient to indicate that the land is in general use by the community for informal recreation rather than occasional use by individuals as trespassers’9. Thus, what is a ‘significant number’ will depend upon the local environment and will vary in each case depending upon the location of the application site.

53. On the basis of the evidence forms submitted by the applicant, there would appear to have been use by a significant number of local residents. The evidence submitted in support of the application suggests that a significant number of local residents have used the application site on a regular or daily basis. However, as stated above, there is a dispute between the applicant and objectors as to nature

6 R (Cheltenham Builders Ltd.) v South Gloucestershire District Council [2004] 1 EGLR 85 at page 90 7 R (Cheltenham Builders Ltd.) v South Gloucestershire District Council [2004] 1 EGLR 85 at page 92 8 Leeds Group PLC v Leeds City Council [2010] EWHC 810 at paragraph 97 9 R (Alfred McAlpine Homes Ltd.) v Staffordshire County Council [2002] EWHC 76 at paragraph 71

and frequency of recreational use on the application site. This is therefore a question which requires further examination.

(d) Whether use of the land by the inhabitants is continuing up until the date of application or meets one of the criteria set out in sections 15(3) or (4)?

54. The Commons Act 2006 requires use of the land to have taken place ‘as of right’ up until the date of application or, if such use has ceased prior to the making of the application, to fulfil one of the alternative criterion set out in sections 15(3) and 15(4) of the 2006 Act (as set out at paragraph 4 above).

55. In this case, use of the application site as a whole was challenged in 2010 by the erection of fencing along the footpath. If the recreational use of a piece of land ceases to be ‘as of right’ before an application for the registration of the land as a new Village Green is made, the applicant has a two year period of grace during which an application can be made (see section 15(3)).

56. In this case, it is the erection of the fencing that appears to have triggered the Village Green application. The fencing was erected in February/March 2010, and the Village Green application was made in June 2010. Therefore, the application has been made well within the two-year period of grace prescribed by Parliament, and this test is therefore met.

(e) Whether use has taken place over a period of twenty years or more?

57. In order to qualify for registration, it must be shown that the land in question has been used for a full period of twenty years. The twenty year period is calculated retrospectively from either the date of the application or, where use of the application site ceased to be as of right prior to the making of the application, the date upon which use of the application site ceased to be ‘as of right’.

58. In this case, it has been established that the recreational use of the application site as a whole ceased to be ‘as of right’ when the fencing was erected in February/March 2010. On the face of it, therefore, the relevant twenty-year period is therefore 1990 to 2010 (but note the impact of foot and mouth closure, discussed below).

Continuous use

59. There is a dispute as to whether recreational use of the application site has taken place for a full and uninterrupted period of twenty years. This dispute relates to the use of the application site for grazing purposes and flooding which has taken place on the land.

60. It is argued by the objectors that the use of the land for grazing purposes has discouraged recreational use of the land when the cattle were on the land, and it is alleged that the vast majority of local residents would avoid using the land when the cattle were present. This is strongly refuted by the applicant, who states that use of the land for recreational purposes was not affected by the presence of the cattle and there is evidence from numerous local residents who refer specifically to the presence of the cattle on the land during their usage; far from being a deterrent, the cattle were in some cases an attraction.

61. The objectors also argue that use of the land for recreational purposes would necessarily have been interrupted during periods of flooding. In particular, during the floods of 2000/2001, the land would have been inaccessible for many months due to flooding.

62. The applicant’s position in respect of the flooding is that such flooding of the land as did take place was of very limited duration. In fact, during the 1990s, water levels along the Little Stour were so low that there was widespread concern about the river drying up. Flooding, in the applicant’s view, did not adversely impact upon the use of the land for recreation or substantially interrupt recreational use during the material period.

Foot and Mouth closure

63. The tenant farmer, Mr. Holdstock, refers to the closure of the footpaths during the Foot and Mouth crisis. In Kent, all Public Rights of Way crossing farmland or woodland were closed to the public between 6pm on 27th February 2001 and 6am on 12th May 2001 using powers under the Foot and Mouth Disease Order 1983. As such, there would, necessarily, have been an interruption to the use of the land, particularly the Water Meadows, during this time.

64. However, section 15(6) of the Commons Act 2006 states that in determining the 20 year period, “there is to be disregarded any period during which access to the land was prohibited to members of the public by reason of any enactment”. Therefore, the closure of the land during this three-month period would not have the effect of defeating the application for the registration of the land as a Village Green.

65. In practice, all that would be required is for the relevant twenty-year period to be extended by an additional three-month period to take into account the time that the land was statutorily closed. The applicant’s case is that use of the application site has taken place for a period in excess of twenty years and, as such, the closure of the land due to foot-and-mouth would not present any problem in this case.

Conclusion

66. As has been noted above, there have been various disputes regarding the nature and factual basis of the evidence. The applicant’s case is that the weight of the evidence established prolonged and frequent use of the application site by local residents for recreational purposes. The Objector’s case, on the other hand, is that whilst there may have been limited recreational use of the application site, the extent and frequency of such use has been highly exaggerated.

67. Although the relevant Regulations10 provide a framework for the initial stages of processing the application (e.g. advertising the application, dealing with objections etc), they provide little guidance with regard to the procedure that a Commons Registration Authority should follow in considering and determining the application. In recent times it has become relatively commonplace, in cases which are particularly emotive or where the application turns on disputed issues of fact, for

10 Commons Registration (England) Regulations 2008

Registration Authorities to conduct a non-statutory Public Inquiry11. This involves appointing an independent Inspector to hear the relevant evidence and report his/her findings back to the Registration Authority.

68. Such an approach has received positive approval by the Courts, most notably in the Whitmey12 case in which Waller LJ said this: ‘the registration authority has to consider both the interests of the landowner and the possible interest of the local inhabitants. That means that there should not be any presumption in favour of registration or any presumption against registration. It will mean that, in any case where there is a serious dispute, a registration authority will almost invariably need to appoint an independent expert to hold a public inquiry, and find the requisite facts, in order to obtain the proper advice before registration’.

69. It is important to remember, as was famously quoted by the Judge in another High Court case13, that ‘it is no trivial matter for a landowner to have land, whether in public or private ownership, registered as a town green... [the relevant legal tests] must be ‘properly and strictly proved’. This means that it is of paramount importance for a Registration Authority to ensure that, before taking a decision, it has all of the relevant facts available upon which to base a sound decision. It should be recalled that the only means of appeal against the Registration Authority’s decision is by way of a Judicial Review in the High Court.

70. A decision to hold a Public Inquiry is not one which the County Council should take lightly; such a decision imposes significant burdens on all parties involved in terms of the preparation for and attendance at the Inquiry. Officers will, in the first instance, always seek to resolve an application without the need to resort to a Public Inquiry if at all possible. However, there are occasions, of which this appears to be one, where there is a serious conflict in the evidence which cannot be resolved on paper and the County Council has little option other than to refer the matter to a Public Inquiry for the matters to be clarified before a final decision is made.

71. In addition to factual disputes in the evidence outlined above, it is clear from all of the documentation that the Village Green application is a very emotive issue which generated a great deal of media publicity and local debate, and has become a matter of significant local importance. The documentation received by the County Council is vast and runs to almost 6 lever arch files. It is important for all parties that all of this evidence receives full and proper scrutiny by an expert in this area of law. Not only is it in the interest of the landowners to test the evidence which they dispute in order to ensure that all of the relevant legal tests are strictly met, but there is also a strong public interest in the matter being heard in public forum so that all members of the community may participate and make their views known.

11 The Public Inquiry is referred to as being ‘non-statutory’ because the Commons Act 2006 does not expressly confer any powers on the Commons Registration Authority to hold a Public Inquiry. However, Local Authorities do have a general power to do any thing to facilitate the discharge of any of their functions and this is contained in section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972. 12 R (Whitmey) v Commons Commissioners [2004] EWCA Civ 951 at paragraph 66 13 R v Suffolk County Council, ex parte Steed [1997] 1EGLR 131 at 134

72. Therefore, it would appear that it is not possible to determine this matter on paper and the most appropriate course of action would be for the matter to be referred to a Public Inquiry.

Recommendations

73. I recommend that a non-statutory Public Inquiry be held into the case to clarify the issues.

Accountable Officer: Mr. Mike Overbeke – Tel: 01622 221513 or Email: [email protected] Case Officer: Miss. Melanie McNeir – Tel: 01622 221511 or Email: [email protected]

The main file is available for viewing on request at the Countryside Access Service, Invicta House, County Hall, . Please contact the case officer for further details.

Background documents

APPENDIX A – Plan showing application site APPENDIX B – Copy of application form APPENDIX C – Summary of user evidence APPENDIX D – Plan showing ownership of the application site

T H F E .000000 .000000 iel L dv I 0 Su ie S 0 nny w T 622250 622500 0 s 0 Brambletye ide

0 Netherby 0 0 0 0 0

0 P South 0

. ip . pen APPENDIX A: s View 0 0

0 Hawthorn 0 Wy tch Bungalow

0 w 0 ood Plan showing the application site C le s 9 r t 9 ab it e ap L iv a p a ri 5 le 5 s u ta Q is 1 W Springtime 1

Morville k W c ickh a amb r Lo rea A T dge ux lto T na 2 e C n 1 o n u is rt

T s H The Rectory e Glebe E g L

8 I a Bungalows S t T t List Cottage o C D 9.7m

A d D O r a a R i o n

R E

V s e g O n v i R n o y G r w Closes House T G

S o u Firstone th Fairlawn e rn

1 D Pear a W w Tree IC F n Cottage K S la Birchways H tab g A le s M GP Vi to ew n C Wickhambreaux O e s O rc U h R a T r d L Iv C A y o 7.9m N C t C E o t r Creekers Barn t a o ta g s g e sd T e y Quaives h ke Wickham L e s i F C Hallowes tt e o Lodge le r t 1 n ta F C g 2 e o e T T rn t W h h ta o e e g r O O e k l a h d s L o t it u H T tl se o h eb u e r Wickhambreaux Oast s C o 6 e S r o . t o k D Court 6 Cottages T A ft C

m The Old E W n Pumping Station 1 E V y n Frank Montgomery Rectory R ie tl e 0 T w ew 0

S S C Playing Field

0 Rose Inn t 0 3 E a o e W r t k 0 H C t 0 h T o y

0 s i t 0 e e e te L ta D g g 6 it 0 t g 0 g a a T H le e ta t tt h o W le

0 t 0 t o e u h S . o s i to o . o C C C T Co te u C t o u e t r h in r o t d ta V a 0 e e t g k r 0 it d P a o 1 e ie c D n y g r 2 Dyke w h e e a 5 e l 5 W v 1 a n House B L im 7 GP Public Footpath 7 h ll l C a e pe H l H g a s 8 r h e 8 e o C g 's W o F o a C w H tt D d x o 5 w o 5 e C a o s C r n r l t o a E o n u h ll d G t n in i t u c 1 a 1 n a CB1 M r 84 h d t A c C e t Quaives e t r o n S S u tt r 2 H ) h ) o Cottage (um C The e b 1 o Path e Bell E g e w g d Sluice ta a y e t h o Mill m S H n T l House t C o t e o a ( a H C l C c u g o t n Ho o r h s Riverside s h o r T e e u e y o s r C t e W e B h k r t o 1 n l m r l l a e e o r l n c a l g e i g C a r o e t D B e t B a o m A F B s e Seaton Mill i C W B 4 O l r

l

3 R B P Seaton l a t il M s Pond M k e

m A u

The a Old Willow e r

2

h 1 Q Road

t H W

r

k o s u ic 6 ' Mill W K y r o a

te Cottages t t 1 C Farm t e Yard I O S rf W le a SE FB tt ll AT i ON FB W L R e O t a A s t D e s er u rac LB a fie l- o l il O ds M H .8m TCB 5 Hookfield Seatonfields House The Old Stone

House

4

1

5 2 Spicer's

M

6 Place I 3 U L nd L 1

7 C

1 1 L

O

S

E Mill

Hamlet

4 7

CS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 in 0 ra 0 D 0 . . 0 0 0 0 5 5

8 P 8

a

t 5 5

h

( 1 1

u

m

)

) m u ( h t a P

Drain

Tor Spa Pond

0 Issues 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 3 0 . The . 2

0 Potting Shed 0 1 5 5 2 2 8 8

5 Stable House 5 1 1

ICKHAM COURT FARM Rectory C ottage E (um) N Path A .000000 .000000 L E 622250 622500 Y A B

Land subject to Village Green application at µ Seaton Meadow, Wickhambreaux Scale 1:3500

APPENDIX C: Summary of user evidence submitted

in support of the application

Name Period of Frequency Activities Other comments use Mr & Mrs C. 32 years Weekly when Walking, kite flying, ball When resident weekly Alabaster until 2000 resident, now for games observed children playing, village events walkers, village events Mr M. Ashley-Jones 1998-present Weekly Family walks, playing, Regular use by others – picnics, enjoying walking, paddling, bird wildlife, relaxing watching. Use now limited due to now fenced Mr & Mrs P. Barrett 1994 – Daily when could Dog walking, playing in Feb 2010 land fenced and present river with children, kite signs put up (fenced off flying Feb 2010) Mr & Mrs J. 1960 until Daily when could Walking, playing in Observed daily walkers, Bateman fenced off river, picnics, dog people with picnics, 2010 walking children playing in river Mrs L. Bates 1982 - Regular basis Children played in river, Others use of playing, picnics, walking, fishing walking, picnics, Village for tiddlers duck races, school use for river projects Mr & Mrs D. Bolton 1982 – 2010 Weekly/monthly Walking, bird watching, Can see from house daily fenced off river watching, use until recent erection of blackberrying, playing fences and signs. School with grandchildren often use river for projects Alecia Brewster 1987-2010 Regularly 1987- Dog walking, picnics, March 2010 fenced off. fenced off 1994, occasionally paddling, kite flying, See others regularly 1994-2000, regularly duck feeding walking & using land 2000-2010 before Miss A. 1969-1999 Weekly As child played, Daily see others enjoying, Broadbridge paddled in river, walking & family fun. Now picnicked, as teenager looks an eyesore as walked, relaxed and fenced off and community then as nanny took deprived children there to play & enjoy river Mr R. & Mrs A. 1940 -1992 Monthly, 1992 Played, walked, picnics Daily walkers & Broadbridge occasionally birdwatchers, school pond dipping, kids playing Tina Burton, David 1991 – Daily Dog walking, pond Daily seen other users Burton present(only dipping with children, playing, walking, canoeing footpath) family fun Mrs D. Chandler 1934 – 1994 Daily as child, Field games (rounders, Daily seen others walking, weekly/daily as adult cricket), picnicking, fishing, playing, also walking, fishing village school activities Mr D. Chandler 1971 – Daily/weekly as Played in river as child, See other family activities present child, now walking and playing occasionally with with own children own children Mark Chandler 1970 – Weekly as child, Paddling, fishing, kite See other games & present occasionally now. flying, use river activities Take own children stepping stones to cross to next village

Roy Chandler 1960 – Daily as child, Walking & playing; cut See others walking & present occasionally now across river to next playing in river village Lisa Clark 2002 – 2010 Daily & more in Dog walking, children March 2010 fence when fenced summer paddling, fishing erected. Previously used by village daily Mrs C. Clarke 1963 – 2010 Occasionally Dog walking, kite flying, March 2010 fences put up. picnicking, sledging Always people using land and same with own children Genevieve Cobb 1990 – Occasionally Walking, bird watching, Notices March 2010. March 2010 enjoying nature, picnic Other activities weekly Mr R. Collins 1985 – 2010 Weekly Bird watching on behalf Fence erected 2010. of Kent Ornithological Other use of walking, Society, family walks & picnics, paddling play, dog walks Mr & Mrs K. Cooper 1971 – 2010 Weekly Family picnics, walking, Seen others walking, children playing picnicking Mr J. Cotton 1999 – Daily or weekly Exercise See others walking, present playing Mrs D Curtis 1955 – Daily when lived in Children playing, Regularly see others present village, occasionally paddling, walking dog walking, family outings, now moved to fishing Wingham Mrs J. Dack 1980 – 2010 Monthly sometimes Dog walking, See other walkers when fenced more exercising, children off played Mr M. Dack 1980 – 2010 Monthly Walking with family & Used by village school pets until fencing March 2010 John & Rose 1958 – 2010 Monthly Walking, relaxing, play Fenced off 2010. Seen Dartnell with children other use of walking Mr & Mrs Davies 1994 – 2010 Weekly Walking, paddling with Other use dog walking, when fenced children, picnicking, children playing, fishing. fishing Local school used land for projects. March 2010 fence erected Fiona Dawson 1998 – Occasionally, more Walking, paddling, Other use daily – walking, present in summer. Children fishing, village duck playing use it weekly/daily race, picnics, games Claire Day 1989 – Daily now Walking, playing Return to village to enjoy present occasionally as the land, but recently moved away fenced Jan de Bont 1987 – Monthly Walking, enjoying river See other walkers present Laura Downes 1978 – Weekly in summer, Fishing, making camps, See others enjoying the present monthly in winter village duck races, land – family games & picnics, making play. Safe area in locality snowmen, now do the same with own children Zara & Patrick 2000 – 2010 Daily Dog walking, family & Daily see others walking, Duffy friends walks, paddling playing, picnicking, in river with children, children fishing bird watching Mr & Mrs Dutton 1987 – 2010 Daily / weekly Walk dogs, play with See other use – walking, fence children, jog, pond blackberrying, picnicking, erected dipping playing in river Sharon Egin 2007 – 2010 Daily Dog walks, children Fencing off safe area fence put up playing in river affects safe childrens play

Mr & Mrs G 2006 – 2010 Weekly Dog walking, picnics, March 2010 fence & signs Farnham fence bird watching, running erected. Previously daily erected use by others walking, fishing, playing Ms J. Farnham 2006 Daily since 2009 Walking, jogging, bird Fence erected & signs watching put up end Feb 2010. Local school using river for pond dipping, people used land daily Mr B. Ford 1984 – 2010 Daily with dogs, now Walking, photography, See others daily walking, fence weekly paddling in river kids playing, picnicking erected Mrs M. Gooderon 1996 – 2010 Occasionally Walking, bird watching 2010 fence put up. Others fenced off walking, picnics, children playing, bird watching Mrs K. Gower 1985 – 2010 Occasionally to 2008 Dog walking, picnics, Fence installed & signs fenced off then daily playing as child, school Feb 2010. Others outings walking, playing, fruit picking, bird watching Caroline Hagan 1975 – 2010 Weekly/ Monthly Fishing/playing in river, Other use – usually see fenced off 1998 onwards making camps, others walking, fishing, occasionally photography, kite flying snowmen, sledging David Haigh 1976 – 2010 Monthly Exercise, wildlife 2010 erection of fencing & observation notice. Other use of walking, picnics, children paddling, bird watching Mr H. Haines 1982 – 2009 Weekly/monthly Bird watching, walking 2010 prohibitive notices. due to ill to Seaton Village school used river health for educational activities. Mrs J. Hammond 1963 – Weekly Picnics, children fishing Other use of dog walking present in river and playing & children playing rounders, camping, cricket, kites Tracy Harris 1992 – 2010 Weekly & daily Dog walking, children Feb/Mar 2010 fence & fence during school playing in river, notices went up, family holidays sledging in winter can no longer use it. See others daily, walking, playing, school projects Geordie Hayward 1962 – Mar 1991 – weekly/daily Dog walking, 2010 barbed wire fence 2010 fence photography, kite erected & notices. Always flying, ball games, see others walking, blackberrying, dam (house overlooks the building with children, Marsh) & many other bird watching activities Ollie Hayward 1991 – 2010 Daily Cross-country running, 2010 erection of barbed walking, kite flying, wire fence. See others socialising on river walking, school field trips bank Mrs E. Healy 1984 – 1999 Daily when had dog Strolling, observing Popular childrens & family river, taking area grandchildren to play Miss H. Hirst 2001 – 2010 Daily Dog walking, watching March 2010 fence wildlife, meeting others, obstruction. Daily see village Tai Chi group others use & enjoyment of land – walking, playing, school children by river Mr & Mrs G 2006 – April Weekly Walking Recent obstructions of Hutchings 2010 fence. See other walkers

Joy Jennings 1996 – Daily with dog, less Walking with dog & 2010 March fence & signs March 2010 now due to health neighbours prevented use of land. Regularly others walking, flying kites, school nature trips, family fun Julia Jensen 2008 - Every few days Dog walking Others playing, walking present John Joice 1999 – Weekly Walking, observing March 2010 barbed wire March 2010 nature, taking son for fence & notices. Other walks & play use of walking, children playing, school outings. Used for village recreation for decades Mrs E. Jones 1978 – 2010 Occasionally, Walking, picnics, tai-chi March 2010 fence & children used daily in class, hot air notices put up. Daily use school holidays ballooning, paddling in by others – walking, ball river, bird watching, games, paddling, picnics fishing Mrs C. Kelsey 1960 Weekly Walking, picnics, bird 2010 notices, fence & watching, playing locked gates, security games lights. Other use of walking, bird watching Knight Family 1991 – Weekly Walking dogs, taking 2010 fence & notices present children to play, cross erected. General (restricted) country running group community use as amenity land Michael Knott 1962 – 2001 Daily Exploring wildlife & Daily use by others – (moved river, bird watching, walking, fishing, children away) walking. playing in river, kite flying Eunice & Hyman 1961 – Occasionally Walking, kite flying, See others walking, kite Kossoff present children playing flying, children playing Graham Lane 2001 – 2010 Weekly/monthly Walking, playing with March 2010 notices & children, dog walking, fences prevented use. playing in river Prior use by others – walking playing in streams etc. Mr & Mrs R. Lane 1974 – 2010 Weekly Family recreation Notices & fences put up.

David & Angela Le 1987 - Weekly Walking, picking Other use – artists, Breton present blackberries, paddling birdwatchers, dog walkers, with children, sketching photographers Christine Le Jeune 1973 – 1970s several times Children paddled & 2010 fence & notices. March 2010 a week, 80s & 90s fished in summers, Previously see others weekly, now monthly snow play & daily – can see from tobogganing winter; house. Hot air balloon picnics, blackberrying rides, school projects Mrs L. Lodge 1980 – 2010 Occasionally Dog walking, enjoying 2010 restricted access. nature, take classes Other daily use or weekly from school to paint & – walkers, bird watchers, carry out nature children playing, fishing, surveys, history picnics projects Norman & Ann 2007 – Daily Dog walking & enjoying See others a lot – Long present river bank walking, painting, children playing Mr & Mrs D. 1994 – 2010 Several times a Dog walking, bird 2010 fence erected. MacIsaac week watching, paddling in Other use – walking, stream, enjoying playing, local primary riverbank school, snowballs & snowmen in winter Mr & Mrs A. 1963 – Occasionally Walking, activities with Fences & warning notices Mauduit present children & March 2010. Daily see (restricted) grandchildren, other recreational use Brian Maxted 1963 – 2010 Occasionally Photography, wildlife, Barbed wire fence & children & locked gates 2010. Prior grandchildren playing, daily use by others – relaxing walking, playing Mr & Mrs J 1982 – 2009 Occasionally Walking, playing with Weekly use by others – McGeever (moved children walking, playing away) Rita & Bob 1992 – 2010 Daily/weekly Walking, sitting Fence erected. Others McMurran watching wildlife walking, playing Mr & Mrs Metcalf 1960 – Daily Picnics & playing as March 2010 areas fenced March 2010 child, then walking off. Seen children playing, school activities, walkers, twitchers Mr & Mrs R. 1984 Daily until 2004 then Walking & picnicking Observed others walking, Mitchell onwards weekly with friends & family, playing, photography, bird children played and watching, picnics went on school study trips Edward Moon 1952 – 2010 1982-2006 daily, Playing and school Observe others walking & then weekly activities as child, then playing dog walking, meeting others, enjoying nature Pam & Ron Moon 1960’s- 2010 Weekly Dog walking, children Use now restricted. playing in river, Others use – walking, kite meeting friends flying, playing in river Jacqueline Mount 1993 – Couple of times per Walking, playing with March 2010 new owners March 2010 month children in river put up fence. Seen others walking, picnics, playing Mrs R. Murgatroyd 1961 – 2010 Weekly Horseriding, dog Ugly fence erected 2010 & walking, enjoying notices. Seen other nature walkers & golf practice Mrs R. K. 2007 – 2010 Occasionally Dog walking Daughter used land for O’Sullivan nature study lessons Mr & Mrs B. 2002 – 2010 Daily Dog walking Prior to March 2010 no Ovenden indications land was private. See other walkers, birdwatchers, children playing Mrs S. Paine 1992 – 2010 Occasionally Walking with family See children enjoying river, walkers Dr J. Peebles 1987 – Daily when resident Walking, childrens present in village, now games and learning monthly about river Jo Pestel 1986 – 2005 Frequently in Walking Family still in village and (moved summer, less winter use land away) Katy Pickvance & 1986 – 2010 Daily all year Walking, children Recent fence & signs family playing, observing stopped use. nature, enjoying countryside David Pollard 1970 Occasionally Walking with family Seen children playing, walkers Max & Camilla 1962 – 2010 Monthly Fishing, playing with Always see others Presland children, walking with walking, playing family Joan Priestman 1998 – 2010 Monthly Dog walking Seen others walking, paddling Terence Relph 1980 – 2010 Daily Dog walking, playing Observe others walking & with children in river playing Christopher & Anne 1970 – 2010 Weekly/daily/monthly Family picnics, playing March 2010 fence erected Riddell 1955 – 2010 over the years in river, pond dipping, & signs put up. See other walking with friends, use of walking, playing, wildlife surveys local school activities, picnics Fern Riddell 1986 – 2010 Daily/weekly as Dog walking, paddling, March 2010 fence and child, 2005 at picnics with friends, signs put up. Other use university, still use in learn about nature walking, picnics, family holidays fun, river studies for primary school. Land used by three generations of family John Somers 2005 – 2010 2-3 times per week Dog walking, family fun 2010 fence & signs put up – paddling, sledging, picnics, reading Isabella Stephens 1982 – 2010 Several times a Walking, running, March 2010 fence & signs week picnics with put up. School use land grandchildren for projects Charlotte & Eoin 1996 – 2010 Daily Dog walking, children Seen others playing, Stewart restricted playing games & on picnicking, walking. access river, photography, blackberrying Elizabeth M. 1949 – 2010 Regularly to Dog walking, playing 2010 notices put up. Over Stewart occasionally over when children young – years people walking, years kites, in river, with playing, fishing, friends mushrooming Ian Stewart 1977 – 2010 Regularly mid 80’s & Dog walking, playing Notices up March 2010. (restricted) 90’s, now with children Village duck race occasionally Judy Sturrock 2001 – 2009 Occasionally Playing with Always people dog grandchildren , walking walking & enjoying scenery Edward Taylor 1988 – Weekly as child, now Walk dog, fly kite, play Others walking, playing, present occasionally when in stream picnics, painting visit Susan & Peter 1980 – 2010 Daily / weekly Walking with dogs, Notices up March 2010. Terrill children, friends, Daily see others walking, picnicking, kite flying, ball games, children paddling, picking playing in river mushrooms Katherine Trotter 2003 – 2010 Twice weekly Walking, paddling, March 2010 fences & restricted picnicking, dog walking notices up restricting access access. Mr Alex Twyman 1946 – 2000 Weekly Fishing, dog walking, See others playing, (moved paddling with children, picnicking, walking away) bird watching Carol Twyman 1960 – 2000 Weekly Picnics, walking dogs, Daily see others enjoying (moved children playing, bird land away) watching

Emma Twyman 1972 – 2000 Weekly Paddling, picnicking, Three generation of family (moved rounders, village duck have enjoyed the land away) race, bird watching Timothy Upcroft & 2002 – 2010 Weekly Painting, picnics, Daily see kite flying, ball Mary Clemson walking with family & games, walkers, playing in friends river Mrs Ann Vine 1988 - Weekly, now Walking, watching 2010 fence put up. occasionally grandchildren play Always seen walkers & children playing Dr. J Volkman 2001 - Daily, weekly, Walking, children Signs put up March 2010 monthly (weather paddling & playing in dep) stream, kite flying, picnicking, photography, enjoying nature & wildlife, socialising Annabel Ward 1977 - Weekly (sometimes Walking, dog Barbed wire & notices daily) exercising, wildlife, March 2010 “no right of meet friends, bird access” watching, community activities John & Emmy 1964 - Daily Dog walking, children & Wire fencing put up 2010 Watts grandchildren playing, Easter egg hunts, blackberrying, family fun Lucy Watts 1970 - Frequently Dog walking, picnics, March 2010 fence & signs bird watching, painting, put up playing, blackberrying Tim Watts 1960’s - Frequently as child, Walking, playing Often see others playing, now occasionally games, paddling in walking etc. river, kite flying, dog walking Mrs E Wellard 1996 - Weekly now monthly Kite flying, picnics, Weekly see others using drawing, children land. Concern for safety playing in river with wire put up Mr A White 1997 - Occasionally Walking See other walkers & families. Mrs C Whiting 1973 - As child daily or Play games, fishing, Daily see other use weekly, 1992 kite flying, picnics, onwards less so meet friends, blackberrying Brian Wilkinson 1998 – 2010 Daily Dog walking, taking See other use – family grandchildren along picnics, walks, games riverbank, bird watching Mrs J Wilkinson 1966 - Monthly, Walking, picnics, Other use by walkers occasionally now blackberrying, playing older with grandchildren Karen & Malcolm 2007 - Daily Walking, bird watching, March 2010 sign of no Withers playing with access grandchildren J Wood & M Blake 1978 - Often / occasionally Walking, exploring Prevented since March riverbank 2010 R Wood & C Savin 2003 Occasionally Dog walking, picnics, playing The Wright Family 1987 – 2010 Daily / weekly over Dog walking, children Prevented by current years playing, picnics, river owners exploring Holly Wyles 2006 - Weekly Dog walking March 2010 Philip Wyles 2006 - Daily Dog walking Prevented March 2010

.000000 .000000 .000000 W yt 622000 chw Bungalow 622250 622500 ood C e ra tl s b it e ap iv ia ple L a r s u ta Q s i Springtime APPENDIX D: W

Morville k W c ick a ham r L bre T odg aux Plan showing the ownership A e lto T na 2 e C n 1 o n u is applicatiort n site

T s H e Glebe E The Rectory g L 8 I a Bungalows S t T t List Cottage o

C D 9.7m

A d D O r a a R i o n

E R

V s e g O n v i R n o y G r w Closes House T G

S o u Firstone th Fairlawn e rn

1 D Pear a W w Tree IC F n Cottage K St la Birchways H ab g A le s M GP Vi to ew n C Wickhambreaux O e O s rc U h R a T rd L Iv A y C 7.9m N C o C E o tt r Creekers Barn t a o ta g s g e sd T e y Quaives h ke Wickham L e s i F C Hallowes tt e o Lodge le r t 1 n ta F C g 2 e o e T T rn t W h h ta e e g o O e rk O h ld a o s Li u t tt s H Th le e o e b Wickhambreaux Oast u C ro 6 s S r o . e t o k D Court 6 Cottages T A ft C

m The Old E W n Pumping Station 1 E n V yt e Frank Montgomery Rectory R ie le 0 T w 0 S w

S C Playing Field 0 t 0 Rose Inn 3 E a o e W r t k 0 H C t 0 h s T o y 0 i L t 0 e e e te i ta D g g 6 tt 0 g H l g 0 a a ta T e e e t tt t h o W S l 0 t 0 o o e u h t . o s C it o o . C C C T e o e u Wickham C r t o u t r h in o t d ta V k ra 0 e e t g i 0 it d P a o 1 e e c D h n y g r 2 Dyke w e e a 5 e l 5 W v n 1 a House B L im 7 GP 7 h l l C al e pe H l H g a s 8 r h e 8 e o C g s W o F o a ' C w H tt D x o o d 5 w 5 C a o s C r n e l a E r u h o o n t ll d G t n in i a c t a 1 u M 1 n h rd t A e t Quaives c C e t r o n S S u tt r 2 H ) h ) o Cottage (um C The e b 1 o Path e Bell E g e w g de Sluice ta St Andrew's h o Mill a y m t C S H n T l House t o t e o a a ( c H C l C u g o t Ho o r h s s n h o r Riverside T e e u e y o s r Church C t e h e B k r W l t o 1 n l m a r e l e c a l o r l n g e i g C a r t D B o e e t B a m o F B s A e W i Seaton Mill C B r O l 4

l

3 R P l B Seaton il a t M M s Pond k e

m A u

a Old Willow e 2

The h 1 Q Road r

t W k o H r

u ic 6 s y ' Mill W K r o a

te Cottages t t 1 C Farm t K965680 e Yard I O S r fa S W le E FB tt ll AT i ON FB W L R e O t a A s t D e s er u f c a (Mr. and Mrs. Perkins) ra LB ie l- o l il O ds M H .8m TCB 5 Hookfield Seatonfields House The Old Stone

House 4

C 1 5

H h 2 Spicer's o a M

u p

6 Place I e 3 U s L n l d e L 1

7 1 C 1

L

O M S il E lb o Mill u rn Hamlet

e 4

Rosemary 7

CS The Moorings K965436 (Mr. and Mrs. van 0 0 0 0

0 de Vyer) 0 0 K965680 0

0 n 0 ai

0 r 0

. D .

0 (Mr. and Mrs. 0 0 0 5 5

8 P 8

Pierce) a

t 5 5

h

( 1 1

u

m

)

K965417 (Premier Trust)

) m u ( h t a P

Drain

Tor Spa Pond

0 Issues 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 . The . 2

0 Potting Shed 0 1 5 5 2 2

T8 he Old 8 Rectory 5 Stable House 5

TH 1 1 E S TR E E T

1 3 ICKHAM COURT FARM Rectory Cottage ) E s e (um N e g Path A g a L ta Ttt his plan has been prepared for illustrative purposes only. E

t o Y o 9

C A C 7 k B a O For details as to the exact bouIcnkhadm aries of ownership, please refer to the Land Registry Title plans. Court St John's Church 622000.000000 622250.000000 622500.000000

Land subject to Village Green application at µ Seaton Meadow, Wickhambreaux Scale 1:3500